Day v. Sioux Falls Fruit Co.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1920
• Docket Number: 4678.
• Citation: 177 N.W. 816,43 S.D. 65
• Parties: DAY et al. v. SIOUX FALLS FRUIT CO. et al.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

177 N.W. 816

43 S.D. 65

DAY et al. v. SIOUX FALLS FRUIT CO. et al.

No. 4678.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

May 24, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County; L. L. Fleeger, Judge.

Proceedings by Frank Day and Pearl Day under the Workmen's Compensation Law for death of their son, Van P. Day, the employé, opposed by the Sioux Fallas Fruit Company, the employer, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company the insurer. Compensation was awarded, the award confirmed by the industrial commissioner and the circuit court, and the employer and insurer appeal. Judgment of the circuit court affirming the order of the industrial commissioner, and order denying new trial, affirmed.

Davis Lyon & Bradford, of Sioux Falls, for appellants.

Parliman & Parliman, of Sioux Falls, for respondents.

McCOY P. J.

This action arises under the Workmen's Compensation Law (chapter 376, Laws of 1917), and was instituted by Frank L Day and Pearl Day, father and mother of one Van P. Day, a son, who was killed while in the employment of the Sioux Falls Fruit Company, at the city of Sioux Falls, on the 12th day of March, 1919. Claim was filed with the industrial commissioner by said parents claiming that they were dependent for support upon said deceased employé at the time of his death. The said employer and its insurer, the codefendant, resisted said claim. Under the provisions of said law a board of arbitrators was appointed, testimony taken and heard, and findings and award in the sum of $1,650 made and allowed by said board in favor of said claimants. On demand of defendants a review thereof was had before the industrial commissioner, who received and heard further testimony, and approved and affirmed said findings and award. Appeal by said defendants was then taken to the circuit court, wherein judgment was rendered, affirming the order of the industrial commissioner. Motion for new trial was made and overruled, and an appeal taken to this court.

The first 13 assignments of error refer to rulings in relation to the admissibility of evidence. According to strict and formal rules of evidence, applicable on trials before law courts, some of said assignments may be well grounded, as some of the questions were leading in form, while others called more or less for the expression of a conclusion rather than a direct statement of a probative fact. We are of the view that at least a part of the policy and intention of the Legislature in enacting the Workmen's Compensation Law was to evade the delays and much of the technical formal procedure incident to trials before courts, and to establish a more simple, speedy, less formal and summary method of procedure, unhampered by formal legal rule, for the adjustment of such questions between the employer and employé. Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach, 181 Ky. 262, 204 S.W. 152, 16 N. C. C. A. 879; Industrial Commissioner v. Johnson (Colo.) 172 P. 422, 16 N. C. C. A. 350; Parson v. Murphy, 101 Neb. 542, 163 N.W. 847, L. R. A. 1918F, 479, 16 N. C. C. A. 174.

We are of the view that the Workmen's Compensation Law should receive most liberal construction, and that the findings and awards of arbitrators and the industrial commissioner should not be reversed for failure to observe the formal rules of evidence applicable on trials before law courts, unless it clearly appears that appellant has been prejudiced thereby to such an extent as to deprive him of some substantial right. Considering the said assignments of error in this light, we are of the view that appellants were in no manner prejudiced by reason of any of said rulings. It does not appear that any evidence was rejected that should have been received and considered, which might have been ground for substantial modification or have changed the result.

The next error assigned is that the court erred in entering judgment affirming the decision of the industrial commissioner. This assignment, standing alone, is unavailing for...